STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. NIRANKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated June 24, 2004, Annexure P-1 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short 'the tribunal' in Original Application No. 430/02.

(2.) ESSENTIAL facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 1, Divisional Forest Officer was served with the charge-sheet dated October 1, 1990 and placed under suspension. The charges levelled against him pertained to financial irregularities committed by him during the period when he was posted in Social forestry Division, Sehore and Social Forestry division Rajgarh in the year 1989 and 1990. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the departmental proceeding and the order of suspension, the respondent No. 1 knocked atthe doors of the Tribunal in Original Application no. 163/91. The Tribunal by order dated March 27, 1991 directed the order of suspension be kept in abeyance and subsequently by final order dated September 17, 1992 directed the department to expedite the departmental inquiry. As the proceeding was not completed as per order passed in Original Application No. 163/1991 on February 17, 1992, Original application No. 498/93 was filed for quashment of the charge sheet. The Tribunal disposed of the said Application on October 22, 1993 directing that the departmental enquiry to proceed according to the schedule already notified to the delinquent employee i. e. w. e. f. October25, 1993 to November 26, 1993 and the delinquent employee shall remain present on each date of enquiry and his absence for each day or part thereof will provide fifteen days' i extension to the inquiry officer. He shall not indulge in unnecessary lengthy cross-examination. Two witnesses, namely, j. N. Sharma and V. Sonis were directed to be made available for further cross-examination and only relevant questions to be put. Further, the Tribunal directed no dates of enquiry should be fixed between November 19, 1993 to december 6, 1993. Before the Tribunal the delinquent employee informed that he has to i examine only three to four witnesses and he would submit his defence statement within a period of seven days from the date inquiry officer orders requiring the same. The Tribunal directed the schedule w. e. f. December 7, 1993 shall be notified and the inquiry shall be conducted on each working day and, if necessary, on non-working day if convenient to the inquiry officer and the delinquent employee, and should be over by December 22 or so. It was also directed that the inquiry officer shall complete the enquiry report by January 7, 1994 and submit the same to the disciplinary authority and if the enquiry report is not submitted on or before January 7, 1994, the same shall stand quashed. Apart from the above, the Tribunal also stated that in case there are good reasons to depart from its directions by the State Government or the delinquent employee, both would have a right to approach the Tribunal for issuance of interim directions. The time-frame fixed by the Tribunal was extended up to January 24, 1994 as per order dated January 6, 1994 passed in M. A. No. 3/1994. Thereafter the inquiry officer: completed the inquiry and submitted the report on January 5, 1994. The respondent No. 1 was asked to submit his show-cause and thereafter the matter was referred to the Union Public service Commission on November 3, 1995 and to the Central Government on February 3, 1996.

(3.) WHEN the matter stood thus, the respondent No. 1 preferred Original application No. 430/02 before the Central. Administrative Tribunal seeking quashment of the entire departmental proceeding or in the alternative to command the respondents to pass a final order to the effect that the departmental inquiry be completed. There was a prayer for, grant of compensation.